No outsourcing

The US is India's very limited ally in combating Pakistani terrorism, says N.V.Subramanian.

By N.V. Subramanian (12 December 2008)

12 December 2008: Did the Indo-US nuclear deal play any part at all in the terrorism in Bombay? And is the United States India's all-weather friend in combating Pakistani terrorism?

These two questions have inevitably arisen in the course of yesterday's Parliament discussion on the Bombay terrorism. Sitaram Yechury of the CPI-M, who is opposed to the nuclear deal, drew a "connection" between the nuclear deal and the terrorist attack.
"With the Indo-US nuclear deal, with the strategic relationship that you are building up with the US, are you prepared to face the threats of Taliban and Al-Qaeda reaching our shores…?" asked Yechury. "Has this even entered our radar of thinking that because of this nuclear deal and the strategic relationship, we are exposing ourselves to new types of terrorist threats, which did not exist in India earlier?"
"[There was a] total lack of appreciation [of this reality]," continued Yechury. "It is this which led, I think, to a certain degree of complacency that you did not anticipate these sort of attacks…I think there was a degree of complacency because you did not factor in this new factor, you did not factor in the fact that with a strategic relationship between India and (the US), you are exposing yourself to new threats and new dangers. I think this connection will have to be made."
The other reference to the US apropos Bombay terrorism came from Arun Shourie of the BJP, again, like Yechury, opposed to the Indo-US nuclear deal, but not reflexively anti-American as the CPI-M politician is expected to be. Shourie told Parliament pithily yesterday, "Please stop running to mummy (US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice) whose government in any case is going in five weeks. This business of putting faith in someone else to tackle Pakistan-based terrorism must stop."
Shourie didn't say that the US was or was not India's "all-weather" friend. But the fact that he sought self-imposed curbs on rushing to the US against Pakistani terrorism suggested his faith was eroding on American intent and capacity to deliver to India. The two jabs against the US on Pakistani terrorism came from two ideologically-opposed political quarters. How fair is this?
Since the nuclear deal has been signed, it is a fait accompli. No future government can easily backtrack from it without damaging India's credibility as a respecter of international agreements it has signed. (This writer, incidentally, remains opposed to the nuclear deal.) At the same time, Yechury, whose party opposed the nuclear deal, cannot overnight turn favourable to it. The CPI-M has not given up on reversing the deal, and on restoring "independence" to India's conduct of foreign policy by extricating it from the US's "strategic embrace".
Definitely, this background colours Yechury's perspective on the causes for the terrorism in Bombay. But objectively speaking, he has not made an objectionable point, or one which is illogical. The element of Indo-US strategic partnership has contributed to the Bombay terrorism, especially in the targeting of foreign hotel guests, in particular, Americans and Britons, and the attack on Nariman House shatteringly brings up the Israeli angle. Possibly, not just the nuclear deal, but the US bombing of Al-Qaeda and Taliban targets in FATA played a role in the Bombay terrorism, because the rigour of training imparted to the terrorists, and the jihadi intensity of the Bombay attack, clearly show Al-Qaeda and Taliban characteristics.
In this light, Yechury is not mistaken or entirely ideologically biased to connect the nuclear deal and the Bombay terrorism. Where a line must be drawn, however, is in keeping an examination of the nuclear deal and its intrinsic values separate from its contribution (if any) to the Bombay attack. In other words, the nuclear deal must be assessed for its value to India's strategic interests and growth, but it should not be shunned because it has become a red rag to the terrorists. But, yes, India should not add to the miseries of the world produced by US unilateral interventions by virtue of becoming the US's strategic partner.
As for Shourie's point, it is well-taken, and this writer's own position for long. The US will not assist India to the point of permanently alienating Pakistan. The US is not and won't ever be India's all-weather friend. It is anyhow naïve for states to hanker after non-existent all-weather friends. India has to take its own decisions in regard to combating Pakistani terrorism, including taking tough decisions. The war against Pakistani terrorism cannot be outsourced to the US or to the UN Security Council.
N.V.Subramanian is Editor, NewsInsight.net. Har-Anand has published his new second novel, Courtesan of Storms.

About Us

There are three ways to tackle the issues that repress India. One is to shut our eyes to corruption, venal politicians, anti-entrepreneur bureaucrats, and a mindset against meritocracy. The second is to become part of the system, merge with an interest group, and feel guiltless about street children, rat-eaters, riot-victims, men and women who cannot spell their name, or vote-robbing...